In product liability cases, conflicting expert testimony can feel like a tug-of-war between science, opinion, and legal strategy. While it might seem as if two highly trained professionals can’t possibly see the same issue so differently, the reality is that expert witnesses bring their own methodologies, experiences, and—sometimes—biases to the stand. So, how can you handle this like a pro? Let’s dive into some tactics that help attorneys manage the twists and turns of expert testimony, even when those experts don’t exactly see eye to eye.
1. Know Your Experts Inside and Out
The first step in handling conflicting testimonies is getting to know your experts thoroughly. You need more than a CV; you need to understand their approach, biases, and specific expertise. For example, one expert may specialize in design flaws, while another zeroes in on manufacturing defects. By identifying these subtleties early on, you’re better equipped to anticipate potential contradictions and decide whose voice carries more weight for your case.
Not all experts are created equal in the eyes of the jury. The courtroom is as much about credibility as it is about credentials, so understanding how each expert’s background, experience, and personal presentation align with the facts of your case can make all the difference.
2. Focus on the Methodology, Not Just the Conclusions
When two experts present conflicting testimony, it’s tempting to focus on who got the “right” answer. However, courts and juries place considerable weight on how an expert reaches their conclusions. One may base findings on extensive lab testing, while another leans on theoretical models. By dissecting the methodology, you’re able to pinpoint where your expert may shine or where the opposing expert’s approach might fall short.
For example, if your expert has used an evidence-based approach with rigorous peer-reviewed methods, emphasize this in court. On the flip side, if the opposing expert’s conclusions rest on less rigorous or speculative grounds, bring this to light tactfully. Methodology can be the golden ticket that helps the jury appreciate why one opinion holds more scientific weight.
3. Use Cross-Examination to Highlight Strengths and Expose Weaknesses
Cross-examination is your chance to test the validity of an opposing expert’s conclusions. It’s not about discrediting the witness altogether but rather about showing where their testimony might fall apart under scrutiny. Questions that focus on assumptions, sample sizes, or overlooked data points can reveal inconsistencies and create doubt.
For instance, you might ask an opposing expert to explain why they didn’t consider certain variables or to acknowledge that their analysis was based on a limited dataset. By doing this, you can subtly steer the jury towards a preference for your own expert’s well-reasoned approach without directly challenging the opposing expert’s integrity.
4. Address Conflicting Testimonies in a Clear, Concise Way
Conflicting testimony can confuse jurors, especially when it involves complex technical jargon. Break down each perspective in layman’s terms, presenting them as two different ways to view the same evidence. This helps jurors see that while the experts disagree, their testimony is not arbitrary. Use simple visuals or analogies to explain the key differences in their arguments.
This approach also reassures jurors that while experts might differ, they aren’t necessarily opposed in every regard. By focusing on the points of agreement, you can help guide the jury toward understanding that the crux of the case rests on a few critical discrepancies.
5. Leverage Product Liability Expert Testimony Services to Strengthen Your Case
When expert testimony becomes complex, using a product liability expert testimony services provider can streamline the selection process and improve the reliability of your chosen witnesses. These services help attorneys access a vetted pool of experts who bring credibility and depth of knowledge to the stand. With such support, handling contradictory expert opinions can become less about drama and more about effectively presenting the facts in your favor.
Navigating conflicting expert testimony in product liability cases requires thoroughly vetting experts, emphasizing methodology over conclusions, strategic cross-examination, and clearly communicating the nuances to the jury. With the right approach, attorneys can mitigate the risks of dueling experts and present a compelling, evidence-based case.
